Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-1994 Planning Commission Minutes~-t -y JULY 27, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. Cit 'Council Chambers, 13777 F'ruitvate ate'. Y Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Murakami. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami Late: None Absent: Chairman Asfour City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE JULY 13, 1994 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 1, correction 1 to the June 22, 1994 minutes, Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff made the appropriate corrections. - Page 3, paragraph 3, last sentence to read: "...remain in t=aEk tact ...." - Page 3, corrected to read as follows: "Commissioner Caldwell stated that she based htrr conclu~iorl (ln Ill~e(I(1!~]i~~t!11ce 1-~I~rd (-!~ h\~r lilntl u~~~ ~ i~it ul~ the ~it~~. Sht: ill~(- I~elt tl]itt tl]l' Ill 1;.'lll'~(Irll(1{1(1 \\'il4 11111 (I{It. ill'1(,l tl'lt' i]{11'1'll'~ \\lrC 1)!)~ltl{)rlt'.(1 !rl <Ut'llil \\'il\ tl'li'lt it \\il~ dit'I'icult to ~~~~~ I'r(lnl rllilm (lf tllc~ pul~lit: r('rl(I~ iln{1 tll~ <<~rv Ilc;tc;rncent~(>u~ r!at!lrc (~t it. \~ a r~~~lllt. I1; r (i~~l~~,~!,linilli(~n \\il; bil~~~(1 un Iln~ Ilonn~~ Illi~t \\~~r~ immediately visible z~ear!tl]e sits. It was .her opinion that the neighborhood was a predominately two story neighborhood. - Page 4, paragraph 1 amended to read: "...each of the Commissioners would need to ...................................... determine what a neighborhood is. She sees this ~t neighbarhocac as predominantly two story. - Page 4, paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell commented that she was saddened to see that part ~3~ the existing vineyard was going to be removed...." - Page 6, paragraph 4 a]nendecl to correct the word "build" to "buildable" - Paragraph 7, Commissioner Murakami supported the comments as stated by Chairman Asfour. However, he would be inclined to support the kitchen addition. It hc~ \\~crc: to illlo\\ tllc t~~piul~i(rn to (lc::!Ir in it; ~~r!ir~t~, it \\{nll(1 cilu~t: icl llrt~ct{It:nc~ in the nciehhorlloutl. .; 'PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES JULY 27, 1994 - PAGE-2- - Page 8, paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell questioned how staff derived ~ the $71. fee associated with the temporary sign or banner request...." - Page 8, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Community Development Director Curtis commented that when you have a sign on a vehicle that is parked in a legal parking space there really is not much you can do to enfcirce ~tlie code ..." THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: CALDWELL, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 22, 1994. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. V-94-005 - Martin; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Lane; request for Variance approval to allow a 397 square foot single-story addition to an existing 3,871 square foot two-story residence. The maximum allowable floor area for the parcel is 2,720 square feet. The existing structure is considered legal non-conforming in that it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 1,151. square feet. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted t7oor area per Chapter 15 of the City code. The subject property is approximately 19,285 gross square feet (7,800 net square feet) and is located within an R-1-12,500 zone district (cont. from 7-1.3-94 to present a revised Resolution). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commissioner Caldwell requested that agenda item one be pulled from the agenda. She recommended that the resolution be strengthened which reflects some of the discussion that the Commission had at its last meeting. The first suggestion that she had was on page one dealing with special circumstances applicable to this property. She recommended that one of the circumstances read that the location of the existing structure on the property, principally the home and the location of the porch area, is in existence and would not be an intensification of the use of property. For that reason, the Commission was not exacerbating the impervious coverage. It is further to be reflected that the impervious coverage would not be intensified. She stated that she mentioned her comments to staff and requested that staff draft language to address her comments. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES JULY 27, 1994 PAGE-3- Planner Walgren recommended that page 2 of the first finding be amended to read as follows: - :\n existing st.ihtit~mtial secc~ttcl ~tctr~° pc.-rtiun of the borne and ~~~ill not create: nur intensil'}~ the; ~tniourtt c-f currant Icti ecn•er~tge. •I~hc~ Icrc~ttic~n ~tnd the confi~!ur~itiem of the c~eiain~, hcius~~ itself thcrci'urc creates the slrecia.tl ciret.un~tance. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-94-005 AS AMENDED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT). 2. DR-94-024 - Roberts, 14350 Douglass Lane (Parcel 1); request for Deign Review approval to demolish an existing single-family home and construct a new 5,638 square foot two-story residence in its place pursuant to Article 15-45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is 1.25 net acres in size and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from Mr. Robert Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, expressing concern regarding the potential incompatibility of the proposed 5,000+ square foot homes with the existing homes with the existing homes on Douglass Lane and Durham Court. Since the report has gone out, staff has received several additional letters from: a resident at 14150 Douglass Lane expressing concern regarding the architectural capability and the size of homes; Mr. Spencer Azala, 19897 Douglass Lane, expressing concern regarding the compatibility of the homes and the protection of the riparian corridor; Marilyn Berg, 1.4191 Douglass Lane, expressed concern regarding the compatibility of these homes (parcel 1 and 2) with the existing homes and the protection of the riparian corridor; and Gary Paster, 14230 Douglass Lane, expressed concerns with tree preservation, architectural compatibility and riparian protection. He informed the Commission that an overhead has been prepared with addresses shown on it to reference the different properties which would likely be affected by this proposal. Three Monterey pines are proposed to be removed. Two would need to be removed to accommodate construction and one is being taken out which is outside of construction. The City's arborist has had the opportunity to review the proposal. There is a nine inch DBH coast live oak within the front of the house that Mr. Coate has given a high rating to. As it stands this evening, staff recommends that it be transplanted elsewhere on the site rather than be removed. Staff has had the opportunity to discuss this requirement with the City arborist who felt that the size of the tree and its health could be a successful candidate for transplanting. Commissioner Caldwell stated that based on her land use visit and review of the documents and since the applicant was the same for both agenda items 1 and 2 that, some of the issues may relate to both items and questioned if the Commission should discuss both agenda items 2 and 3 at one time. She also felt that the neighbors also may wish to address both items. .~ 'PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES JULY 27, 1994 PAGE-4- -Community Development Director Curtis commented that if the public hearing was to be opened for both items, that the Commission repeat the agenda item which is under discussion under the joint public hearing. The Commission should then close the public hearing on both agenda items and then take action on each agenda item. Commissioner Caldwell commented that on agenda item 2 and the transplanting of the tree, she questioned if staff had given any thought as to what would happen if the tree does not survive the transplanting. Planner Walgren responded that at this point there is no means to follow up that a tree survives other than the requirement that the transplanting is overseen by an ISA Certified Arborist. There is no long term provision for checking on the tree's survival over the years. Commissioner Caldwell stated that in the past, the City had sometimes required maintenance bonds for a specified period of time where regular inspections are performed or security deposit required. She questioned if those measures would be appropriate in this case. She stated that she was leery of the transplanting of the tree because she knows that it was difficult to have a successful transplant. Planner Walgren responded that one way to ensure the trees survival is to require the transplanting up front before demolishing or construction occurs and then have the arborist check the tree to see what its status looks like before the house is finaled. It would be a year or so before it is known how the tree is taking without having to have a restriction tJ~at goes to five years to be the responsibility of a future owner. Commissioner Caldwell questioned that in that instance if it was the arborist's opinion that the tree was not going to survive, the city would have a contingency to provide an equal value replacement. Planner Walgren agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's statement/question. Commissioner Caldwell had questions pertaining to parcel number 2. In looking at the applicant's proposal for additional grading within the riparian corridor in the open space easement created at the subdivision level, she noted that there was an ordinance sized oak tree that is very close to the location of the proposed grading. In fact, the grading would take place within the root zone of said tree. She noted that the original purpose of the open space easement was to maintain a portion of the property as open space for wild life use and to protect water quality and other reasons that were cited at time of subdivision approval. She was wondering if there was any other way of resolving this drainage problem that staff was aware of and whether staff had any concern about grading in the open space easement. Planner Walgren responded that staff discussed this issue with the applicant early on in the application process just because of the fact that there was grading proposed within the open space easement. Grading is not strictly prohibited but it clearly is not in the spirit of the open space easement. Planner Walgren stated that the applicant responded that the grading was a minor one to two feet of contouring to direct drainage from the residence but that it could be eliminated. Particularly if work is tc~ occur within the dripline line of the oak tree, then staff would support merely eliminating the grading which the applicant has stated can be done and be replaced with a minimum retaining wall outside of the open space easement Commissioner Caldwell also expressed concern which spawned by looking at the additional drainage proposal about the driveway because it was relatively close to the riparian area. She looked at the Best Management Practices that was written by the San Francisco Bay PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES JULY 27, 1994 PAGE-S- Regional Water Quality Control Board and developed by the staff as well as the Santa Clara Valley Water District staff. These were best management practices for the design phase new construction and redevelopment and they speak clearly to the fact that the City is encouraged in planning to limit impervious coverage. Particularly in areas with water quality benefits and to maintain a natural topography and drainage system, through vegetation as much as possible. She wondered if staff sees any particular problems with a condition that would require at least in the driveway of parcel number 2 of pervious coverage. Planner Walgren responded that it could be of pervious coverage but would be a little more difficult to maintain. But is commonly done particularly if there is another objective (e.g., getting oxygen or moisture to the tree). Commissioner Caldwell stated that in this case, she did not recall any trees in particular that were very close to the driveway but that it was the proximity of the creek itself. She was concerned with sheeting of the driveway and having some drainage issues there. She stated that in the past, the city required the use of different material or conditioned projects to be of pervious material and that it .would be up to the applicant to decide between turf block or interlocking pavers. Planner Walgren responded that there were several different levels. Interlocking bricks are much less pervious than an open turf block. An interlocking brick that is on compacted gravel or sand functions very similar to a natural hard surface driveway as far as sheet flowing is concerned. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the last question she had was raised by many of the letters that were received tonight. She questioned if staff had looked into the issue of the size of. the homes in the neighborhood where these parcels are to be located. She appreciated the fact that staff printed out the different zoning districts. Planner Walgren responded that staff did not review the size of homes lot by lot. But in general, the tracts north of the property on Durham Court and Douglass Lane are older tracts of primarily one story, ranch style and older style homes. There have been some renovations on Douglass Lane and staff would agree that the letters were probably accurate. The home sizes were much less than the over 5,000 square feet that is being proposed under these applications. However, as you go around the property to the east, where the R-1, 40,000 designation is, that was the recently approved eight lot Sisters of Mercy subdivision. Those were one acre lots which would permit tip to a 6,000 square foot house and would anticipate that the City would receive applications for homes in the 5,000 to 6,000 square foot range. There were also larger homes on Douglass Lane, off of Fruitvale. Visually, they appear larger than the homes off the other end of Douglass Lane and Durham Court. As you go around the property, there are the end lots and horse shoe drives which are the one acre plus lots and the Spaich Estates which are much larger homes. The area is a varied community when viewed in 360 degrees. However, he would agree that the homes off of Douglass Lane and Durham Court are probably within the range indicated in the letters received. Commissioner Kaplan. questioned if there was a conflict in the resolution as opposed to the information on the status sheet. Page 6 of the staff. report talks about the material and colors proposed as stucco material painted off-white with composition shake roof per the submitted material board. The resolution, item 8, page 10, speaks of earth tones as reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Planner Walgren responded that the approved colors would be those depicted on the material board that is pinned up on the board should PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES JULY 27, 1994 PAGE-6- the Commission find them acceptable with the home being an off-white color and should so stipulate in the resolution. The point of the condition was that the material colors would be restricted to the approved material board presented to the Commission. Should the applicant wish to amend the colors, it would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Parcel 2 should also be amended to specify the color. Commissioner Kaplan commented that in the resolution, page 9, the finding that the proposed main structure be compatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing residential structures on adjacent lots, is not accurate based upon what staff has stated. It is partly true depending on where one is standing and making the 360 degree visual inspection of the neighborhood. She felt that it has to be stated more clearly in the resolution. She requested that staff adjust the finding so that it reads more clearly in the resolution. 3. DR-94-025 - Roberts; 14360 Douglass Lane (Parcel 2); request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,435 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 1.5 net acre parcel pursuant to Article 15-45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------VICE- CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M. FOR AGENDA ITEMS 2 AND 3. Community Development Director Curtis requested that the speakers indicate which lot or house they were addressing. Mark Roberts, 13690 Fortuna Court, Saratoga, applicant for both parcel, stated that he has been a resident of Saratoga for over 16 years. He informed the Commission that he has just completed the off.-site improvements for this particular subdivision. All conditions of approval have been met and felt that he has exceeded the conditions of approval. A couple of trees were saved that were designated by the arborist to be removed by moving the road north to allow for the trees. He saved the tree that was in fact designated to come out, but that he adjusted the road and saved the tree. At this particular time, he is under a program of irrigating the trees and taking care of them so that they have a better opportunity to survive. Additionally, he had some work that had to be done in the creek area. He worked with the City to minimize the impact of the work that was done in the creek. Also, improvement to the pedestrian easement and the pathway had been made to make it safer. A.5 far as on site improvements on the property itself., on the back portions of the lot, five telephone poles were removed along with the high tension power lines so that the eye sore is removed. He requested approval of the homes as submitted. The house on parcel 1 is on a 1.25 acre net parcel and the other house is on 1.5 net parcel. These particular houses exceed 5,800 square feet in coverage, but also includes the garage. He responded to the letters received from the neighbors that the homes on Durham Court were smaller. He commented that there are a number of larger homes there. Sometimes the square footage that were stated on the letters were actually larger if one was to incorporate and adjust them according to the same criteria under what his property were under (adding the square footage of the living area and the garage). At this time, he has 12% percent lot coverage on parcel one and 15% lot coverage on parcel 2. Comparatively speaking, this was a PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES i JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 7 - transitional. neighborhood and felt that he has worked as best that he could as far as making that transition. Primarily surrounding these parcels were larger parcels. In most part, he has kept under those parcels to the south, east, and west. Regarding the parcels to the north, comparatively speaking, he has less coverage than any of those parcels if the same criteria and ratio of the houses covered on the site (ranging from 15°Jo to 22% that is without having any other coverage such as pools or secondary units). These particular houses are primarily one story (2/3 of the homes are one story and 1/3 of the homes are two story). The 1/3 portion of the two story home has been located away from the neighbors to the north. The homes have been side stepped down the hill and tucked into the hill. The maximum height of the homes were 22 feet. The height of parcel 1 is approximately 15 to 22 feet less than the existing older house that is standing at this particular time. When you look at the plans as presented, it is difficult to get a picture as to what is to be built without reviewing a three dimensional drawing. It is not seen how the homes are to be modulated. In any one case, there is only 13 feet of building line that does not turn the corner or cut back in or out. A lot of work has been done to modulate the houses. The height has been kept done so that he tried the best that he could in considering the conditions of approval under the tentative map. He was under the requirements as stipulated in the conditions of approval. Additionally, the homes were oriented away and towards the private areas of this particularly lots, orienting them towards the creek where there is substantial screening and away from the properties that are on Durham Court. Glen Cahoon, G&G Design, 1585 The Alameda, San Jose, stated that he has read through the staff reports and commented that the reports were well prepared and well thought out and described the development. He discussed some of the architectural. elements and design process on the two homes. Both of the sites are gentle, down hill slopes away from Douglass Lane. There are a lot of mature natural trees existing that help to screen the entire property. The homes were set down the hill to help decrease the overall elevation of the entire height of the houses and how they would be viewed from the surrounding areas. The highest peaks where the height poles the Commission saw on the site were well under the adjacent tree lines through the existing mature trees and the trees' canopies camouflage the backdrop of the design of these homes. The floor plan and the flow of the design are designed to step down and follow a natural contour so that the homes are semi split level with a couple of sections in both areas of two story homes splitting. On parcel 1, the two story element is about 25 percent of the overall floor area. The views of all of these homes either face the bedrooms, living room, family room and are either going out to the back in the private areas of the deck and patio or up to Douglass Lane. That allows for more privacy within the area and provides for privacy for the neighbors. Mr. Cahoon addressed the architectural styles of. the Homes. The integrity of the design of the house is carried out throughout all four sides. There is use of a lot of modulation both front and back of the house. Also, there is stepping of the roof line. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that Mr. Cahoon share his overheads so that everyone is able to see them and comment on them. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE-8- Mr. Cahoon responded to comments and concerns expressed by the Commission. Regarding the oak tree referred to by Commissioner Caldwell, he stated that the canopy was larger than what is depicted on the plans. However, that is the location of the oak tree and is well within the riparian easement and located away from development. As discussed with staff, he talked particularly about the grading. He felt that the existing vegetation and trees are a little further away than where the easement line is. It is a little further down the hill. He felt that gentle grading in the area could be performed without disrupting any of the vegetation or anything within that area. If the gentle grading did not feel comfortable to the Commission, a three to four foot high retaining wall could be installed and build up to it. Also, there was concern expressed regarding drainage coming off of the road. The length of the driveway is proposed to be a gentle slope coming down the property. There were two ways to mitigate this concern. Staff has indicated that one way would be to use anon-pervious coverage which could be accomplished easily by utilizing a turf block or grass seed. An alternative solution would be to collect al] the water in a drain and take it up to a different location (take it away from where the riparian easement is located). He informed the Commission that the color to be utilized are those depicted on the color board. He displayed a transparency of an aerial view showing what is actually developed in the area. It shows the relationship of the existing homes, sizes and surrounding areas. The one thing that makes this site so unique and special is all of the existing vegetation and trees that help screen, shelter the homes, and maintain privacy as well as views. It also protects it from any of the neighbors and gives it an excellent backdrop. He addressed the size of. the homes in the surrounding area. He stated that the neighbors to the north on Durham Court have two story and one story homes. He felt that the use of zoning as one acre home sites would be developed to comparable size homes in the area and makes for an excellent transition between the smaller homes on the half acre smaller lots to the larger homes on one acre lots. He depicted the corners of the homes on parcels 1 and 2 as requested by Commissioner Caldwell. Commissioner Kaplan questioned the distance in feet to separate the homes. Mr. Cahoon responded that between the two units, there is approximately 50 feet of separation between the two homes and that they would not be crammed up against one another. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if there were buyers for the proposed homes and questioned why there were no landscape plans associated with the design of the homes. It has to do with not only the privacy issue with respect to neighbors but also with respect to the comments that were made. There is additional impervious coverage that comes along with landscaping plans that individuals add to their site (e.g., pools, patios, etc.). She questioned the status of the landscape plans. Mr. Cahoon responded that there is interest in both of the homes proposed. Regarding Commissioner Caldwell's question regrading lack of landscape plan submittal, it is always best to allow the buyers for the site to work out landscaping design. for the lot. Kathleen Amezcua, 1411() Shadow Oaks Way, stated that she appreciated that the Commission was addressing the concerns expressed by the adjacent residents. Comments were made by the applicant and the designer regarding transitional zoning. The area was more a rural neighborhood. The proposed homes were very large, bulky, formal hard and PLANNING COMMISSL'~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE-9- are not in any way compatible with the gentle rural nature of the site. She felt that the existing neighborhood had a different character and the existing residents live in this area because of the different character. What is likely to happen is that several homeowners will want to remodel there homes and would be influenced by the architecture of these homes (the design of these homes would creep down and impact the neighborhood). The brochure produced to help sell the property stipulate that the homes provide a pastoral view of Saratoga while providing the perfect site for a home of the future. She felt that the applicant was going to destroy the pastoral view. She recommended that the homes be designed to be in tune with the existing homes. Robert Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court,' noted that he sent a letter to the Commission addressing his concern. He stated his opposition to the approval of the design review findings. When he first reviewed the plans, he requested that Planner Walgren provide him with addresses of the homes which were built by Mr. Roberts and homes that were designed by his architect. He was provided with a .list of addresses by staff.. He went to view the homes that were built by Mr. Roberts. The homes he visited that were built by Mr. Roberts were in keeping of their neighborhood and had a good feel for the neighborhood in which they were built. He then asked staff of those homes that Mr. Roberts built and the architect designed, which home most resembled the homes proposed on Douglass Lane. Planner Walgren gave the address of the home built on 22068 Villa Oak Lane, off of Mt. Eden Road. Mr. Woolsey furnished the Commission with photographs taken of the homes he visited. He felt that the homes were well over 5,000 square feet. The home was a large and massive home. In reviewing the design review criteria, he could not see how these homes would minimize the perception of bulk and height. He did not feel that the proposed homes would be an integral. part of the environment. He stated that his family is an active one and spends a lot of time in their back yard. He would be looking up at the southwestern direction, directly at the path of these two homes. From his vantage point, he did not believe that he would be seeing two distinct homes. He will see a barrier of massive wall extending from the south to the far north, a continuance of two homes. He will have a perception of seeing one large wall home from his backyard. He would be living in his present home for another 25 or 30 years. He would not be happy in looking at that abomination for a long time. He would like to see Mr. Roberts and his architect design a home far more compatible in feel with the surrounding neighborhood. He questioned why at this point in time when Mr. Roberts has shown that he is a responsible builder in the past, building homes that are in keeping with the existing .homes in the neighborhood, that he has chosen at this point in time to build two homes that are not compatible with the feel and style of the adjacent neighborhood. Ming-Ching Tang, 14322 Douglass Lane, addressing parcel 1, commented that his concerns were that of bulk and height. In looking out his bedroom window, he saw the height pole representing the highest point of the home. When the home is completed, it will create a big change in what his view will be. Secondly, the home would be moved down and further block his view and several trees would be removed from the tree line mentioned by the architect. He also expressed concern with the grading. The nearest point of grading will be five feet from the property line, approximately fifteen feet from leis existing home. He has two young children, ages 1 and 3. He expressed concern regarding the security which ' PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 10 - will be in place with construction. He is currently suffering with construction noise and expressed concern for the safety of his children. Regarding the road improvement, PG&E is trenching less than five feet from the existing pine tree. He expressed concern regarding construction work impacting the integrity of his home. He pointed out that the compaction of the primary road is a sharp 90 degree angle. He was not aware of this and questioned if it could be corrected. John Teter, 19931 Durham Court, shared photos with the Commission which depict the style of his home as well as the adjacent homes. He informed the Commission that he currently resides in the old Douglass Home. He commented that the proposed homes are to be accessed from Douglass Lane and should be considered as part of the Douglass Lane/Durham Court neighborhood or the Douglass Lane/Durham Court/Shadow Oaks neighborhood. He requested that the homes be kept in character with those established in the neighborhood. New development should be required to maintain the character and nature of a neighborhood and should not establish the character and nature of the neighborhood. The proposed structures are unprecedented in size, bulk and trenching and do not fit in with the existing nature and character of the neighborhood. The homes have been placed down hill to reduce their apparent bulk which is good in one direction but bad in another direction. If a home is allowed to be built with this dimension in the neighborhood, others of similar bulk and size would be built in the present open space. The only other significant sized structure noted was the house on the hill that is the residence of the Seagraves and should not be used as a comparison. He stated his appreciation of the efforts made to enhance the neighborhood and the improvements of the pedestrian easements and respecting the open space to remain unbuilt. He welcomes the new homes, but requested that they be kept to a style and character to the existing nature of the neighborhood. He submitted a letter to the Commission from Bob and Mary Lohr, 14300 Douglass Lane. Planner Walgren read the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lohr. The letter mentions that they were unable to attend the meeting and wished to make their views known to the members of the Planning Commission. They strongly felt that the proposed homes were not in keeping with the. neighborhood. As proposed, these homes were twice the size of existing homes. There is not a single home in the neighborhood that one might call similar in style or character. They believed the design should not be approved and urged the builder to redesign the homes to be compatible with the neighborhood. Jeanne Johnston, 14210 Douglass Lane, informed the Commission that she has lived in this home for the past 31 years. She has great pride and ownership of the neighborhood. She addressed the two parcels that Mr. Roberts was designating as part of Douglass Lane. Douglass Lane is split in two with Wild Cat Creek going through it. She did not feel that these. homes belonged in her end of Douglass Lane. She felt that the proposed homes belonged with those of the Little Sisters of Mercy parcels. She concurred that the existing homes did not fit with the home proposed because the proposed homes were much too ornate, much too large and much too bulky. They do not go with the rural atmosphere. Along Douglass Lane, you see many homes that do not have lawns and have well maintained orchards. She suggested that Mr. Roberts rethink his plans and get more in keeping with the average home of 2,800 square feet with the largest home being 3,300 square feet with two car garages. Hers is one of few that have a separate garage. Most PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES , JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 1.1 - other garages are attached just as they will be in the plans as proposed by Mr. Roberts. The homes on the east side of. Douglass Lane are half acre lots. On the west side of Douglass Lane are 50 foot lots that are quite deep (100 or 200 feet deep). The existing homes are very old and the existing residents do not make moves easily. She does not want this type of development because it is not the neighborhood style. The residents request that the Commission rethink staff s recommendation on these homes. She commented that the oak tree (NC2) would need to be removed and replaced to accommodate the home. It takes five years at a minimum for an oak tree to die. She suggested that these requests be placed on hold for a while and have Mr. Roberts rethink his proposal. The existing residents would be most grateful. Shanta Loomer, 19974 Durham Court, resides next door to Mr. Woolsey, provided the Commission with photographs representing the views from her backyard. She stated that she had no objections to homes being built. However, she expressed concern with the height of the homes from. her backyard. She requested that the proposed homes be minimized and in keeping with the compatibility of the neighborhood as stated by previous speakers. She informed the Commission that when she had her home built, she was not permitted to build a two story home because she was not adjacent to two story homes. She did not know how the homes would enhance the value of her home. Mr. Roberts stated his appreciation of the comments expressed. He felt that a three dimensional. drawing may have helped the residents to understand what was being proposed. He did not know if you could isolate and make a case to the .fact that these parcels are only part of the Durham Court neighborhood. He also added that a number of speakers tonight are really not impacted as far as their own particular homes are concerned and are not adjacent to this particular subdivision. The statement of. homogeneity and ranch style homes on Durham Court is not necessarily true. There exists a number of different style homes. Some of which back up to these parcels. One being a French Normandy, the one across the street is a standard two story and the one in the corner is also a French Normandy. He understands that any type of new development on a site that is used to being seen as open space, may be disappointing to see disappear. Any type of home whether they are as large as these homes or not, will be of some impact. He worked hard to come up with these designs to minimize the impact of the homes on the .lots. He stated the he offered to show Mr. Teter some of the other homes that he built that were much larger that were more fitting with an environ-nent of an area that he built adjacent to 1.0,000 square foot lots that had 2,400 square foot homes on it. He also had half acre sites and ended up placing 3,500 square foot homes on it. It had a fair amount of screening and it worked. As far as the Durham Court neighbors that are immediately adjacent to him, he stated his willingness to work with the Planning Commission as well as the neighbors to provide the type of. screening that they would want to see. He did not feel that these particular homes were massive nor bulky. Time and thought was put into the design of the homes. He understood that this was a sensitive area and felt that the concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the city arborist regarding parcel 1. There exists a 9 inch DBH oak tree that is proposed for removal to accommodate construction of the property. Staff has suggested to the Commission that it was appropriate for transplanting. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 12 - She questioned the likelihood of success for transplanting the tree and the different ways of handling the situation if the tree does not make it. Mr. Coate responded that it was within the acceptable size for transplanting if it is done by hand boxing or by using a Big John tree mover which digs an eight foot ball. Anything smaller than that would not be worth doing. If the tree's structure is not perfect, the city might be better off to allow its removal and replacement by the appropriate number of fairly large replacement trees. A nine inch diameter tree will probably have a 75-80 percent chance of good landscape growth if properly transplanted. But there is always a chance that it would not grow well. In which case, the Commission should require assurance that the transplanting takes hold. The Commission will know if the tree is not doing what it should within three full growing seasons. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if Mr. Coate had the opportunity to review any of the trees on that parcel. 1VIr. Coate stated that on parcel 2, if a protective fence along the bottom part of the property was installed, he could not find any trees that would be affected. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the applicant is proposing grading within the open space easement. They would need to take down that protective fence to accomplish that. She expressed concern regrading the tree and recommended additional review by Mr. Coate because it would be within the clripline of the tree. Mr. Coate stated that he would look at the plans more closely but grading should not occur within the dripline. Commissioner .Kaplan questioned if there was to be 25% to 30% chance that the transplanted tree would not make it, she was trying to figure out which tree on the chart it was and its replacement value and how many trees would it take to replace it. Mr. Coate stated that he would need to perform the mathematics to determine that. Planner Walgren noted that the tree under discussion was tree member 23. Mr. Coate equated the value as being $1,030 and that the value was low because the tree was of rather poor structure, but its health was reasonably good. Mr. Coate informed Commissioner Kaplan that if she looked at the chart at the upper corner, it would show her what it converts to (somewhere between. 24 and 36 inch boxed trees). Commissioner Kaplan stated that she and Mr. Coate have discussed on other occasions on other properties as to whether or not the City does best at this point to say to the developer to put some new healthy trees. Mr. Coate responded that since the existing tree is not a very well formed tree, you are transplanting a tree that is not well structured any how. He felt that it would be a benefit to request the replacement tree. If the tree was a perfect specimen, he would recommend the opposite. Mr. Roberts stated that he had an opportunity to take a look at the pictures circulated and hoped that the Commission discounts those pictures as far as his project was concerned because he did not feel that they were representative at all. Commissioner .Kaplan questioned if Mr. Roberts was willing to address the issue of the replacement trees. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not have a problem with the recommendation. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 13 - COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KA.PLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEMS 2 AND 3 AT 9:04 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT). THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:05 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:18 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan thanked staff for having the height pole and the corner markings outlining the homes so that the Commission could get a good view of what can be seen from the land use visit. Other than the corrections about modification to the resolution, she made some comments about what was heard tonight. She appreciated the fact the neighbors have expressed their feelings. The Commission was here to hear concerns during this process. On the other hand, it is not a majority vote situation and that the Commission needs to review other issues, although, the speakers do bring to the Commission's attention critical concerns. She explained that at one time, she opened her shade to look out into her view shed and saw something that she had never seen before or even anticipated and called the Building Department to inquire who put a hotel out there. She stated that it was a home being built that seemed very large, but there were no trees. Several years later, you don't see the house because the trees have filled in. The view from Mr. Woolsey's back yard has to look different and it has to look dramatic because it has to look different and it has to look dramatic because it is a change from nothing to something. Her concern when visiting the Woolsey property is what he would be seeing. He would, in fact, be seeing houses. There is no way to get around it because something will be built on it. The neighbors raised the issue of how the City allows change. We are in a society that is constantly evolving. Neighborhoods change. Additions are allowed because people need more room and want to upgrade their homes. So we really can't say that every single house that goes into a neighborhood has to look like every other house. She felt that the neighbors have to realize that there are laws which permits a builder to make bigger houses. That is why the codes and the design review process have been written to take into account the fact that change will be coming and to keep it within certain parameters. With that in mind, she could not say that she objects .to the houses and cannot find any grounds to ask the developer to go back and redesign the houses. She would like to see the screen planting and commented that Mr. Roberts has addressed that by stating that he would install screen planting because on parcel 1, with the removal of the trees slated for removal, there is going to be a visual hole because the thickness of canopy will be gone. Something should be installed to replace the trees. She was inclined to go along with Mr. Coate and ask that the tree be replaced with boxed trees. Commissioner Caldwell discussed the issues that she felt were most important in her point of view anal responded to some of the comments made by Commissioner Kaplan. There were a few things with respect to these two parcels that she felt should be non-negotiable from the City's stand point. One being that in situations where we have infill development, we have always required at least a conceptual or initial .landscaping plans. We do not have that in this instance. While she understands Commissioner Kaplan's concern with screening because she shares that concern, she recognized that the Design Review Handbook tells them that they should not rely on the screening alone to resolve design or privacy issues that PLANNING COMMISS# MINUTES JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 14 - may arise. But she did think that landscape plans were needed to evaluate the application. That would tell them where the replacement trees are going to be located. It would give the neighbors a better idea of what kind of screening would be provided to them, we would be clear on whether or not the significant trees on the property are going to be impacted in any way from the landscaping, etc: The second thing that she felt was non-negotiable was the replacement of tree no. 23. With Mr. Coate's input about needing to weigh the trees growing seasons to see whether or not the transplanting was successful and given staff's concerns about being able to successfully monitor that, and given the structure of the tree, she did think that providing for replacement of the tree was appropriate in this case. Thirdly, with respect to parcel number 2, she felt that the riparian corridor in the open space easement that was created at the subdivision level should be held in its natural state and that it is inappropriate to permit grading in that area, particularly with the proximity of the ordinance sized oak tree to the proposed grading. She suggested that when this application does go forward, that the retaining wall be selected as the appropriate remedy to the drainage problem and that the turf block solution be chosen for the driveway rather than collecting drainage off the driveway and diverting it somewhere else or into the creek. She addressed the whole issue of this neighborhood and the infill development situation. She agreed with many of the statements made this evening that the relevant neighborhood for this area is the Shadow Oaks/Douglass Lane area. She felt that the neighbors identified the major issues with respect to neighborhood compatibility which is a finding that needs to be made. She wanted to break this into a few categories. She recognized that this is the size of many of the lots that are located along Durham Court and Douglass Lane. However, even in cases where we have had significantly different sized lots and .infill property development such as on Oahu Lane off of Wendy Lane off of Allendale, and the Ravenwood Drive area off of Quito Road where the lots were large, the Commission worked hard to keep the size of the homes and the design of the homes much in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood as possible. In the case in the Oahu Lane homes, that meant continuing the application, working with the applicant's architect to bring the homes more into character with the neighbors and working on a landscape plan to address privacy and view concerns that were raised. In the case of the Ravenwood homes, the Commission was very aggressive at the subdivision level and made it very explicit as to the design that was appropriate for the area. Her point being was that the Commission has been conscientious as a community in addressing infill because it is a very sensitive issue. She thought that the statement ~ that this is a transitional neighborhood could be made perhaps for every neighborhood in Saratoga. .But it does not mean that we turn the other way on design issues and on bulk issues. For her, the major bulk concern was on the rear elevation of the homes, not so much the front elevation. For one, the rear elevations have the most impact on the immediate neighbors. She was particularly concerned with the continuous structure effect that is going to occur with the proposed location of these homes. In looking from the Woolsey property and from. what she could tell from the Loomer property, looking up with the construction tape out there and the height pole, there is going to be a very small gap. That 50 or 60 foot gap that one recognizes when you are right there where the structures are going to be located is significantly reduced as you move away from the property. The elevation change where the parcels are located and the structures are proposed versus the elevations of the .neighbors that are much heavily impacted are quite different. So you do have a sense of greater height. One suggestion she had for the PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 1.5 - applicant was that he demonstrate that he accomplished some modulation with the front of the homes, but there is not much modulation in the back of the homes. She did not think that he recognized the serious issue of a continuous large structure for these back yard neighbors. Perhaps moving the home on parcel 1 closer to the front of the property would help address that problem. She was reticent to accept the postulation that all homes that will be built in the future in the surrounding open spaces are going to be similar to this one. That is why there is a Planning Commission to recognize the character of the neighborhood and to recognize that the Design Review findings acknowledge the importance of the existing character of a neighborhood. The Commission was not here to embrace what the future of a neighborhood might be but to stand up for what a neighborhood is and what its character is. Embracing development that is appropriate, and that respects the existing character. It may be appropriate to require a two car and not a three car garage. The Commission has done that elsewhere with infill development. She did feel that the neighbors had a good point with respect to the bulk and compatibility issues. Vice-chairman Murakami appreciated the comments expressed by the neighbors. The comments helped to give tl~e Commission a clear view of what is going on. He felt that staff and the applicant have done a very good job in trying to mitigate some of the concerns. At his site visit of Durham Court, his only objection was that you can see that the way the design from the rear of parcel. 2 would be that of a bulky-type appearance and could see why the neighbors would be concerned. It was very helpful to have staff utilize the height poles because it gave the Commission a good idea of what the actual outline of the home would look like. He felt that it would have been nice to have a three dimensional type model to view to get a better perspective to mitigate some of the fears that the neighbors have voiced. He would like to see lot number :l, as far as the rear view, be~ softened. Maybe something can be done to address the bulky issue and some of the design problems that the neighbors have voiced. He suggested that there be a continuance on these items. Commissioner Caldwell questioned Vice-chairman Murakami's stand on other issues (e.g. landscape plans, requirement of replacement trees versus transplanting of the trees, grading in the easement). Vice-chairman Murakami responded that he could see that with the neighbors input, it would be good to view landscape plans. It would be beneficial to have conceptual landscape plans in a design phase so that the Commission can make a judgement on them. He stated that he was satisfied with the arborist report and that if Mr. Coate felt that the survival percentage was very high, a requirement of some sort of a maintenance bond should be required to be included in the resolution. He agreed with Commissioner Caldwell that the riparian corridor should be considered very carefi~lly before anything is done. Commissioner Kaplan. commented that in response to moving the house of the first lot, you would run into a problem. Looking at the natural grade, if you move the house closer to the footprint of the existing house that is going to be demolished, you bring it higher on the terrain. Either you will have to do more cut to set a house in there that will keep the height to the level that the Commission is speaking of. Mr. Tang will have a greater impact from his window. Anything that you put on those lots will impact the lower level of Mr. Woolsey's view whether or not the builder can reduce the size of the home in square PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 16 - footage on lot 1. She was concerned that if the Commission tells the applicant to go back and move the home up the hill, the Commission will be in a situation where we have something looming even larger, visually from below. She supported the replacement trees after hearing Mr. Coate's comments Commissioner Caldwell clarified that the spirit of her suggestion was not so much that it would be a remedy to the problem that she saw, but that it might be one thing to look at in trying to soften the back elevation. and deal with the issue of a continuous structure that she felt would be seen from the backyards of the down slope neighbors (the applicant to look at that issue and develop some ideas for alternatives that could address the concerns). Commissioner Kaplan responded that she did not feel that the residents on Durham Court would have that effect on their property based on her site visit. Commissioner Caldwell reiterated that the applicant may be able to develop some ideas for alternatives that could address the concerns by either moving the home forward, making it more longitudinal, or some alternate solution. Commissioner Kaplan commented that if you look at page 4, the left side elevation, she questioned if that was the one facing the Tang property. Planner Walgren responded that it was. Commissioner Caldwell responded that it exacerbates the problem of having the two homes side by side. The space between them is significantly reduced from the line of sight. She questioned what Commissioner Kaplan's thoughts about the grading issue of lot 2. Commissioner Kaplan responded that she had no problem with restricting grading and that grading should not occur under the tree. One of her concerns in the resolution had to deal with the fencing. It implied that the fencing hart to be there permanently and that was not the purpose. Yet the resolution permits the applicant to open the fence to move something in under there. She would not like to see heavy equipment go in there. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARCEL 1 AND CONTINUED APPLICATION DR-94-024 TO THE SEPTEMBER 1.4, 1994 TO HAVE THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE BULK AND COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS THAT WERE VOICED THIS EVENING. PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE REAR ELEVATION AND DEALING WITH THE EXPOSURE OF THE TWO PARCELS. IT WELL BE ESSENTIAL FOR THE APPLICANT TO LOOK AT THE TWO LOTS WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED WITH LOT 1. IN PARTICULAR, TO ALLOW STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDRAFT THE RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF TREE NO. 23, TO REQUIRE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL SHOW WHERE THE REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE LOCATED, AND IDENTIFY ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING THAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED FOR THE NEIGHBORS. LOT 1, THE STRUCTURE IS LESS IN CF-IARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN THAT OF THE STRUCTURE FOR LOT NO. 2. IT WAS ENCOURAGED THAT THE APPLICANT TRY TO DEAL WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD A.ND BE MORE SENSITIVE WITH THE DESIGN OF LO'T 1. PLANNING COMMISSI, MINUTES i JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 17 - Mr. Roberts stated his concurrence with the motion to continue. He would be willing to review alternatives although he stated that he was not pleased to have the continuance to go all the way to September. But if that was the only available meeting date available, so be it. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (CHA.IRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT). COMMISSIONER KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-005, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: THE GRADING TO BE ELIMINATED WITHIN THE RIPARIAN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT; TURF BLOCK BE USED IN THE DRIVEWAY; AND THAT THE CONDITION REGARDING THE MATERIAL BOARD BE CLARIFIED. Community Development Director Curtis expressed concern that the Commission and the neighbors had question regarding the two projects in similar ways. One question is do you continue parcel one anal approve parcel 2 or do you continue parcel 2 also to see the resolution. of approval. He pointed oi~t that if one is continued to September 14, that was fine. But if the other one is approved tonight, it is approved subject to a fifteen day appeal period. The two parcels would be separated in two and are located side by side. He questioned if it would make a difference to the applicant. THE MOTION FAILED FOR THE LACK OF A SECOND. Vice-chairman Murakami .felt that the way that both lots are lined up, it would be better to make a decision on both of them. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Vice-chairman Murakami's comment. In particular, if there is a solution that may involve moving the structure nn lot number 2 slightly to address the continuous wall, that the applicant would have the flexibility to do that. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION DR-94- 025, LOT 2, TO ITS SEPTEMBER 14 MEETING FOR THE PURPOSES OF HAVING THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE DESIGN ISSUES AND LINE OF SITE ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION RAISED WITH LOT NO. 1 AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF HAVING STAFF REVISE THE RESOLUTION TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO ACTIVITY THAT WILL TA.K.E PLACE WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT. TO PROVIDE FOR A PERVIOUS DRIVEWAY AND TO FORWARD DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICANT DEALS WITH THE PRIVACY ISSUES. THE MOTION CARRIED 2-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: CALDWELL, MURAKAMI; NOES: KAPLAN; ABSTAIN; NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR. PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 18 - 4. V-94-011 - McCullough; 15985 Quito Road; request for Variance approval to allow a fire destroyed single-family home to be reconstructed at its original location and configuration in conflict with current Zoning Ordinance requirements regarding building setbacks, lot coverage and enclosed parking. The subject property is 1.2 acres in size and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item Vice-chairman Murakami questioned page 4 of the drawings. The roof line of the rendering depicts a large gap and was curious as to the nature of the gap. He questioned whether that was an intermediate stage in the construction process. Planner Walgren responded that he believed that it was a cut away of the roof construction. The applicant's builder was present this evening and could answer that question. VICE-CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI OPENED THE PUBLIC .HEARING AT 10:02 P.M. Ryan Farr, Farr Construction, 1891 Almaden Road, San Jose, responded to the question of the roof line by stating that they were cut aways and that the lines should be connected and flow together. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the foundations were built at two different times. Mr. Farr responded that he was not sure. He stated that the home was built roughly around the turn of the century. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it appeared that there was a main house and then an addition was added. Mr. Farr stated that one end was a slab floor and the other one was not. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:05 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT). Commissioner Kaplan questioned staff regarding the on-site parking. There appears to be a turn-around as you approach the house on the left side of the driveway. If it were possible, could a garage be put in there and questioned if there was enough room to pull in and back out. Planner Walgren responded that not according to current codes. Anew structure would need to meet the 20 foot side setback. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-94-011 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABBSENT). 5. DR-94-023 - Baron; 20087 Mendelsohn Lane; request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,408 square foot two-story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of. the City Code. A request for an exception to the floor area reduction requirement for structures over 18 feet in height is also requested. The property is ~~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISS1f~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 19 - approximately 20,062 square feet and is located within the R-1-20,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the observation made by Mr. Coate in his report. That is that many of the trees on site have suffered over time in part due to construction activity on neighboring properties. She requested that Mr. Coate explain this issue to the Commission. Particularly as the Commission looks at revising the tree ordinance and looking towards avoiding such problems in the future. She questioned what happened and what might have been avoided. Mr. Coate responded that what happened is that you have an older complex that was given up. If you comply with the letter of the ordinance on the lot the applicant was working on but piled the soil onto the adjacent lot. Unfortunately, this lot received soil and compaction and litter from surrounding lots. When you combine that with some real terrible structures because of over crowding, the site really suffered. He was not sure that the Commission would have this kind of situation. frequently because how often do we have this big piece of parcel where somebody could accomplish moving soil from one place to another. Commissioner Caldwell commented that a lesson could be drawn from this that when you do have a common owner, the potential exists for one site to be used as a construction or staging area and that the City would need to ensure that protective measures are put in place for the neighboring parcel. Mr. Coate concurred that there should be a provision to prevent abuse from happening in the future. Vice-chairman Murakami commented that at his site visit, he noticed that some of the trees were badly deformed as far as their structure. He questioned if the deformity was due mainly to neglect from maintenance or all the things that were discussed during construction. Mr. Coate responded that it was typical for 100 trees per acre stand to show deformity. A 40 tree per acre stand allows for trees to be equally dispersed, with proportionate trunk and caper. When you have 100 trees per acre stand, no one tree is a good tree except those on the edge. Vice-chairman Murakami questioned if the reason for the trees slated for removal was due to health and safety. Mr. Coate responded that removal of the trees were for marginal health and terrible structure. He emphasized that there were only two places that he sees that you can get .into the ]ot, one is where the driveway will be and the other is the obvious area opening on the road. The second area will be right on the curb, but there is no other way to get to the property. He recommended that fencing be in place to ensure that the contractors use those two areas and no other access. Secondly, since you have the entire canopy of a very usable tree right where the driveway is going to be, there is no other option. Obviously, that is going to be a major entrance point for construction. The area beneath the canopy will be getting a lot of beating. Some exceptional measures will .need to be taken to be sure that the compaction of the soil does not happen. That is the reason for a six inch layer chips with three quarter gravel on top of that. That prevents it from moving and presents a good cushion that should stay in place. Commissioner Caldwell commented that there were no .landscape plans associated with this application. She questioned if there were provisions to have the arborist review the PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 20 - landscape plans to ensure that trees intended to be preserved are not landscaped, over watered or trenched for irrigation. Mr. Coate stated that if the Commission did not wish to have to deal with this issue later, he recommended that it be required that no sprinkler irrigation occur beneath the canopies. That no trenching for irrigation pipes occur beneath the canopies or any other sort of trenching, that should include lateral trenching for irrigation. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the resolution contained a condition to ensure that the trees are protected from compaction in the ft~ture and whether there should be a condition stipulating the material to be used for the driveway. Mr. Coate recommended that the driveway material be of pervious materials in areas beneath the canopies. He recommended that a mitigation be imposed during periods of construction. Planner Walgren stated that Condition 7a of the resolution of approval stipulates that pervious material is to be used within the driveway areas beneath the tree canopies. Vice-chairman Murakami questioned page 56, paragraph 5, third sentence. He understands in reading this sentence that the applicant will pay for the removal and replacement of the trees. Community Development Director responded that it should read replacement. VICE-CHAIRMAN MURA.KAMI OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:21 P.M. John Baron, 20650 Fourth Street, Saratoga, informed the Commission that his designer was present and that Mr. Haws designed the majority of the homes in the subdivision and the area in general. As noted on the site visit, many trees on the lot were diseased. It was his desire to preserve the trees to the maximum amount possible. He has retained a landscape architect from San Francisco with a firm who specializes in historic preservation and is currently working on the landscape plans. He stated that he would not object to paying for the removal of the trees. .However, tie did not want to pay for the replacement of the trees because they were so ill. Linda Baron commented that she sought Mr. Coate's opinion before the lot was purchased. She would ensure and oversee that the trees were protected and that there were no tractors on top of the trees. She elicited the help of Mr. Coate to get the previous owner to remove the items that were stored on site and on the roots of trees. She will continue to seek Mr. Coate's help to prevent the loss of the tree located on back which can be saved. Von Haws, designer, thanked staff for a sensitive and professional job in their report. He designed a less than maximum sized home for the lot. The setbacks have been exceeded on three of the four sides. The home was kept as far as possible from the neighbors. The designs were presented to the neighbors to the left. The neighbor had no concerns about the house, its design or its potential impact upon her project. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the Commission was told that the value of the trees that are in poor condition and having poor structure that would be removed for good forestry practices are valued at roughly $1.2,000. Given what the Council has asked the Planning Commission to do at its last meeting, a policy would need to be developed that PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 21 - would encourage applicants to voluntarily submit money to a tree fund for the city to provide off-site replacement of trees that are removed. She questioned if Mr. and Mrs Baron would be willing to provide the difference between the removal cost and replacement or some percentage of that to submit to the City for its first deposit into the tree fund. Mr. Baron stated that his position was that he tried to move forward quickly on this property and midway through the process, found that he would be subject to a new tree policy which might impact them later. He informed the Commission that most of the trees were slated for removal six years ago. Several of the trees were dead. Mrs. Baron stated that if the trees were of a healthy structure and aesthetically beautifi~l, that it would be painful to see their removal. She would like to see money go into a tree fund. Her concern was that the trees are so poor in structure, that their health integrity is not such that it would be in the best interest of the healthy trees for them to remain. From the owner's stand point, the voluntary contribution would be an imposition on an owner that does not have an unlimited source of funds. The Commission may be asking them to give up the children's playroom or give up a degree of landscaping that you would have liked to be able to do or give up a type of roofing material you wanted to use. Not everyone who builds a house in Saratoga has an unlimited pocket book. So to ask them out of the goodness of their heart to donate $12,000 to have trees planted in other parts of the City was an unreasonable request. While that may be feasible to some people, it may be the difference in whether someone builds or not builds a house. Mr. Coate stated that in this specific case, tree member 8 is actively dangerous and should have been removed years ago. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would have to agree with good forestry practices in this case. This case may be tl~e exception that the City carves out of the policy. But she had to ask the question to demonstrate how ludicrous that suggestion was. Mr. Coate noted that the applicants would have more than $1.2,000 in removal cost because tree number 8 was so large along with the other trees slated for removal. Commissioner Kaplan commented that on the diagram of the proposed pool and the decking around it, it will be under the canopy just at the corner of tree 16. Mr. Baron responded that the landscape architect recommended that the pool be turned to the other direction and moving it into the open space. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if this condition. would be included in the resolution to ensure that the pool is situated in the right place. Mr. Baron responded that lie is motivated on .his own to install the pool as suggested. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CA.LDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:32 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT). Commissioner Kaplan questioned if a condition could be added for a perspective pool applicant. Planner Walgren recommended that a condition be included that states: "No future pool or pool decking shall be antler the canopy of the rear yard oak tree." .y ~~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 22 - COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR 94-023, WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION PERTAINING TO THE POOL AND POOL DECKING AS STATED BY STAFF AND AN ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE ADDED TO CONDITION 7 REGARDING LANDSCAPE PLAN, REQUIRING THAT THEY BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FINAL ZONING CLEARANCE AND THAT THEY PROVIDE FOR NO SPRINKLER IRRIGATION BENEATH THE CANOPIES OF THE TREES, NO TRENCHING INCLUDING LATERAL TRENCHING, BENEATH THE CANOPIES OF THE TREES AND THAT THE VEGETATION THAT IS PROPOSED IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OAK FOREST ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROPERTY. Vice-chairman Murakami stated that he had no objection to the design, especially after going out and looking at the area. He was wondering about the removal of the unhealthy trees as stated in the first part of the proposal. After clarification, he has no problem with the proposal. The design was compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan added that in having gone to the site, her first impression from reading the paper work was to move the home and save the moderately healthy trees. It was quite clear from the site visit that the house is located where it is because there is no where else to put it so she could support the application. MOTION CARRIED 3-U (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis announced the following: Consultant interviews were conducted last week for the Odd Fellows EIR. The interview panel selected the Michael Brandman & Associates to prepare the EIR. He had discussion. with the Odd Fellows representatives and will be meeting with them early next week to inform them about the procedures involved in the preparation of the EIR. He would keep the Commission posted as that goes on. Planning Commissioners were appointed by the City Council last night. The Commissioners appointed were Alfred Abshire, Margaret Patrick and Richard Siegfried. The Commissioner will be sworn in on August 3. They will be invited to next Tuesday night's work session to participate in the discussion of the Circulation Element and so forth. On Tuesday, August 9, staff would be initiating the Planning Commission training session, inviting the new Commissioners to spend a day with staff to observe the counter work with the counter planner. The Commissioners would then spend time with staff on current planning issues and see how staff writes staff report anal what staff looks at. They will also spend time with staff to be briefed on the advanced planning work program. He handed out information. he received as part of the California Chapter of the APA Newsletter, northern section, regarding the Planning Commission half day workshop. ~~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 23 - COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Caldwell reported on the following: - She was called by Michael Parsons who is a Lawyer who works with the Committee for Green Foothills, an organization that is working in conjunction with Greenbelt Alliance in reviewing the Santa Clara County General Plan revisions that area being proposed that will be voted on by the Board of Supervisors at the end of this year. The committee has developed a fact sheet on the proposed changes. They have stated their support in general and their concerns in what they would like to see happen with further revisions to the General Plan. They .requested Planning Commission opinion on their fact sheets and suggestions that they have made. They are doing this with all Planning Commissions in Santa Clara County. She made an immediate comment on the fact sheet in that they left Saratoga out of the list of communities that would be important in considering sprawling development, particularly in the hillside. She asked that the Commission read the fact sheet and that the Commission discuss it at its next study session to provide feedback. - She commented that the tree replacement policy was denied by the City Council. Councilmember Wolfe did not support it and felt that it was punitive. It has been suggested that it be made voluntarily. She recommended that the Commission discuss this issue soon. She felt that the Commission had its work cut out for them in terms of talking to the Councilmembers and letting theirs know that there is broad support for an off-site replacement policy. Recognizing that there may be situations like the one seen tonight where it is inappropriate and developing those concerns. It was a legislative matter and the Commission was free to address the Council on this item. She was naive in thinking that it would sail through and it didn't. She felt that more individuals in support would be helpfi~l next time. She informed the Commission that the Tree Committee was getting together for its next meeting the first week in August. Perhaps the Tree Committee would have some feedback for the Commission as to how to move forward with this policy. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 7/6/)4 and 7/12/94 2. Public Notices for the 8/10/94 Planning Commission Meeting Oral City Council ' ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSr~ MINUTES ', JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 24 - ADTOURNMENT -There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:43 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., August 2, 1994, Senior .Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK